MetaBatty

If it's Sunday...

Free speech lost one of its biggest champions today with the death of Tim Russert. He spent much of his career standing up for you and me, and taught all of us that not only is it OK, but that, in a democracy, it is required for all of us to hold our leaders responsible for their decisions and actions - and that accountability, ethics and the truth will always win (and the lack of those traits will expose the pretenders).

Sunday mornings will never be the same. So long, Tim, and thanks.

Day 2 - The Media Blizzard

I woke up this morning to see that the snow continued to fall through the night. And, if you read/watch the news almost anywhere in the northern hemisphere today, you learn this, as well.

Colorado made it to the big time. It just took a major snow storm for people to pay some attention. Here are some things the media are saying about the "HolidayBlizzard" (as one local news station is naming it - so hip, so clever):

(These links will change over time, so read 'em while they're current)

• "Holiday blizzard buries state" - The Denver Post (well, buries the Front Range, anyway)
• "Major Snowstorm Drops Snow on Colorado" - AP in Breitbart (what else would it drop?)
• "Blizzard of 06 Knocks Colorado to its Knees" - Rocky Mtn. News (begging Mother Nature for mercy)
• "No hell on wheels - it's wheels on hell" - Rocky Mtn. News (Really? They pay you to write this?)
• "White Christmas in US state of Colorado as blizzards roll in" - BBC (Wordy, but nice. Like the British.)
• "Blizzard dumps two feet of snow on Colorado" - CNN (Not bad, but actually three feet of powder landed in the mountains so far. Did you hear that, skiers?)
• "Colorado Blizzard Leaves Travelers Stranded for Second Day" - Fox News (They bring the human element to the forefront)
• "Colorado Blizzard Strands Thousands" - NY Times (best headline yet, also focused on the people, not the state)
• "Denver Blizzard Snarls Travel" - Washington Post home page (Denver? What about the rest of the state?)

Other outlets covering the storm include The Wall Street Journal, Globe and Mail (Canada's national daily paper), USA Today, Detroit Free Press, The Guardian (UK) and many more.

Anyway, you get the point. People get excited about snow. And this national and international media coverage is not unwarranted, since the storm did shut down DIA, the 9th busiest airport in the world (not in the US, in the world) less than a week before Christmas.

All I know is that this means a busy ski season, now that everyone around the world knows we have snow in the Rockies. A lot of it.

If you want to get a good look at the madness, check out these photo galleries and videos:

• BBC
• Denver Post
• CNN video from Day 1
• USA Today/AP video

Bienvenue to the party, pal

Tonight France 24, the new (and first-ever) 24-hours news network from, you guessed it, France, will turn on the lights and begin sending it's round-the-clock news broadcast into more than 70-million homes across Europe, the Middle East and parts of Africa.

Although it might seem like there are too many news outlets out there already, this is actually only the fourth "global" 24-hour broadcast news outlet (behind CNN, BBC and Al Jazeera). It will begin broadcasting in French and English, and eventually in Arabic.

Generally, I think this is a good thing. No matter how objective any of the other global news networks say they are, they all filter global events through their own opinions and perceptions of the world and how they think it should be, to deliver their version of the news. They also have to cater to their audience with stories, and angles, that will interest their viewers and keep them coming back for more.

Which leads to some concerns about France 24. Unlike CNN, France 24 is funded by the French government. In fact, Jacque Chirac supported and encouraged the launch of France 24, as he sees it as a way of ensuring the voice of France is not marginalized by media outlets from other countries (namely CNN and BBC) who might not always agree with their national and global policies, and therefore not give accurate or sufficient coverage of French news and developments. (it also helps keep the French language alive) Add to that the fact that the channel is funded by French taxpayers, you have to assume that they will slant their own coverage to some degree, to appeal to the French government and citizenry agenda.  It could become something more like talk radio, less like a global news network.

But, again, it's good news that France 24 is joining the party. With so many media companies consolidating, the coverage of news is becoming increasingly homogenized, and access to other views of global events becomes more and more limited, meaning the average news consumer has fewer sources of information to make informed decisions - and freedom of the press is further restrained. Another player in this game is one less outlet under conglomerate control, a new voice in an industry whose voices are quickly but quietly being assimilated into one.

But, man....good luck!  This is a cut throat industry, and profits are razor thin, if any, as advertising goes online and away from mainstream/traditional media. But if the taxpayers are footing the bill, you have a much better life support system than the other players.

Looking back at online news sites, 5 years ago today

When I first learned about the attacks on the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, I was sitting at my computer, first thing in the morning, doing my normal routine - log in to Yahoo, check my mail, check the news headlines, then get ready for work. It was a little before 7am MT, which meant it was just after the first plane had struck in New York. 

The small headline on Yahoo's home page, in the news box leading a couple of other, unrelated headlines, simply said, "Plane Hits World Trade Center." I thought to myself that another wacko in a single-engine Cessna must have wanted to make a point again, similar to the nut job who landed on the White House 5-6 years before.  Yahoo didn't have any more information at that point, so I got ready for the day, got in my car, and drove to work.  It was in the car, stuck in traffic, listening to AM radio news, when I learned what was really going on, and when the second plane struck.

Most people remember where they were when they first heard/read the news, and that moment in front of the computer, checking Yahoo as I always did, still stands out vividly in my mind.  Every detail.  Even though the enormity of the situation didn't truly start revealing itself to the rest of the world until later that morning.

Thinking of that morning, tonight I took a look back in time, on the eve of the fifth anniversary of 9/11, and found a snapshot of Yahoo's home page from the afternoon of 9/11/01. I did this using a very unique tool called the "The WayBack Machine," a service of the good people at the Internet Archive. These folks have been archiving Web pages for 10 years (current count: 55 billion) , so I knew I could find a good number of pages from that day.  I wanted to share some of them with you, to maybe help remember how you felt and where you were that day, when the world changed forever, and remember how we all pulled together as a country in the days and weeks following.  Sure wish we could get even a fraction of that back into our culture today.

And with that, some news Web sites and their original headlines from 9/11:

Yahoo!
The New York Times
MSNBC
CNN
BBC
Fox News

Open mic night in St. Petersburg

During lunch at the G-8 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia today, President Bush was chatting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and, thinking it was a private conversation, shared his actual, uncensored thoughts on a solution to the situation in Israel and Lebanon.  Not the usual boilerplate or partyline from the White House, but his actual thoughts, unfiltered.  A highlight from the chat:

"You see, the ... thing is what they need to do is to get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over."

He said it all into a microphone, and the conversation was captured by attending media and quickly shared worldwide.

You can read a great transcript of the complete Bush/Blair G8 coversation (before Blair realized the mic was on and promptly turned it off) on SkyNews' Adam Boulton's weblog.

From a PR standpoint, I am very interested to see how the White House spins this - the president said it, so what do they do next? It seems this is somewhat in line with previous comments from the White House (without the color commentary), so they will probably (and definitely should) pass it off as such.

No matter what, it is refreshing to hear what global leaders are actually thinking and saying to each other, rather than the message points and partylines they all agree to share with the media (and, hence, you and me). It's also a very rare look into how close allies really talk with each other when discussing world events and policy. The fact that the first thing Bush says to the Prime Minister is "Yo, Blair..." says alot about their relationship as leaders and friends. When is the last time we got this kind of backstage access?

Question as headline? Headline as question?

Editors are lazy?
24-7 news media playing to the lowest common denominator?
Headlines should shock readers and not inform?
It's OK to take a rumor and report it as fact as long you make it an open question?

I have noticed a growing and somewhat distrubing trend in the media lately - notably online and broadcast news media outlets.  That trend: adding question marks to the end of alarming 'headlines' that may or may not actually be factual, and are usually based on speculation or rumor. By adding a question mark to this alarming headline, they are shielding themselves from anyone who might accuse them of reporting something that is not true (we weren't saying, we were ASKING!), while at the same time grabbing viewers/readers' attention with quick, stunning claims.

For instance, today I am watching CNN Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. I am in the gym, so the TV is on mute, and I see the following headline appear at the bottom of the screen:

No More Wine?

Naturally, I was alarmed. Was the Blitz about to tell me that the world had officially run out of wine?  Was life no longer worth living?  No, not at all. But a quick glance at that headline might make you think this was the case. Turns out the story they were reporting was about a new study from some random group of scienticians who say that IF global warming occurs, EVENTUALLY conditions in a SPECIFIC part of CALIFORNIA one day MIGHT not be suitable for growing a PORTION of the grapes grown there, hence a POSSIBLE decrease in the supply of wine.

Hence - "No More Wine?"  Makes sense to me.

Many big, trusted news media outlets are doing this.  They are dumbing down the headlines and posing the most obvious question a reader might (or might not) draw from the facts of the story, and presenting it to them essentially as the overall subject of the article. The headline reflects the story, after all. And, again, many times these are based on speculation or rumor (using the question mark probably makes them sleep a little better at night, on that account). It's lazy, it's yellow, it's a cheap ploy, and it's alarmist.  I'm sick of it.

A more correct (but not perfect, admittedly) way of headlining this story would be:

Study says global warming might impact Calif. wine business

...or something to that effect. Which was the real point of the story - growers and investors are afraid that if global warming is happening/does happen, wineries in that region may be adversely affected. 

However - put your editor's cap on and compare my headline to "No More Wine?" and you can see which one is more likely to grab readers' attention and keep them glued to the tube. Then again, you can also see which one is more likely to suggest a bias, lead the reader to a predetermined conclusion, misinform and not allow them to process the correct and complete information for themselves to come to their own conclusion (or further questions).

Here are some other abuses randomly selected from a scan of online news sources today.  All of these are from straight news stories, and not editorials, columns, reviews, weblogs, etc.:

NYC blast related to divorce? (CNN)
Wives, girlfriends to blame for England World Cup loss? (Sports Illustrated)
Is Treasure Hunters copying Amazing Race? (MSNBC)
Apple moving to metal iPods? (The Register UK)
London calling on Hill? (Denver Post)
Is party over for online gambling? (International Herald Tribune - not you, IHT!)

If you remove the question mark from any of these headlines you have some pretty exciting news. And with only a quick glance at the headlines - which editors know you are doing, that is why they have to employ tricks like this to get your valuable attention - you might not see that question mark, and walk away thinking that wives and girlfriends caused the collapse of England's World Cup bid.

There are some bastions of real journalism out there who, at least for today, shun these practices. Some outlets/sites that had no evidence of this abuse during today's scientific scan by me (three cheers to them):
-Washington Post
-New York Times
-LA Times
-CNET News
-BBC

The big shocker for me?  I could not find one instance of this on Fox News (again, not including op-eds, columns, etc). Then again, their lead headline on Foxnews.com today was TUNNEL OF DEATH. Which is their coy, sublime way of reporting on the concrete roof collapse in part of Boston's "Big Dig" underground highway which killed one woman.  Is this a John Carpenter horror movie or a news report?

Anyway, I think the people most guilty of this headline abuse are probably the same ones that started this whole practice in the first place - the tabloids. Some recent "Headlines?" from a scan of online and print sources...

Maddona Quitting Kabala?
Britney Kicking Kevin Out?
Eddie Murphy dating former Spice Girl?

And one I think they should add...

People actually buy this crap?

The Next Stephen Glass

In the late 90's The New Republic magazine had on staff a young, brilliant reporter named Stephen Glass.  Glass was a strong writer, with a flair for finding and reporting on fantastic, almost unbelievable stories on a regular basis - stories that no other reporter in the country could get, and every reporter in the country wish they could.  The reason no one else was getting these stories? Glass was making them up. 

Dozens of articles Glass wrote were fabricated - from the notes, to the sources, to locations. Everything.  But the stories all tapped into popular themes of the day, shared urban legends, hot business trends, politics - and all had an element of truth and believability. Nearly everyone, including his editors, suspended any disbelief they may have had about these sensational stories, and took them at face value.  And his magazine kept publishing them, even amid overt doubts about their veracity.  TNR was selling so many magazines, and earning a competitive place among the leading news and commentary magazines of the time, that they overlooked most of the basic fact checking that would have revealed Stephen's stories were just plain false.  It wasn't until a sharp reporter at Forbes.com wanted to learn more about one of Glass' articles that the veil was lifted and the world realized what Glass really was - a great fiction writer with a vivid imagination and a penchant for manipulating the trust of his peers.  He was fired, TNR issued an apology, and their respective reputations were tarnished for years - maybe forever.

(Click here to learn more about Glass and read some of his fabricated TNR articles)

Today it was revealed that a freelance writer for Wired magazine, probably the leading publication for the technology zeitgeist, may have fabricated numerous sources for her articles.  And other publications to which this freelancer, Michelle Delio, contributed have already pulled some of her past articles from their Web sites, as they could not confirm sources she attributed in those articles. 

Fabricating a source doesn't necessarily mean other parts of an article are false, but where there's smoke there's usually fire...  A journalist uses sources to support claims and details of a story, and serve as the confirmation, the third party justification, that the story you are reading is true.  If those sources are false - how much of the rest of the story can be true?

What makes a journalist do this?  Probably a combination of factors, but, like Woodward and Bernstein taught us - follow the money.  Freelancers are essentially paid by the article, and only if and when that article gets published.  So, the more stories you write - and are interesting enough to get published - the more money you make.  There's also pressure from editors, who want their magazine/Web site to beat the competition with better stories that bring in more readers, so they can take those readership numbers to advertisers, who will buy more ad space in their publication...  You see how that works.  Basically, there are a number of factors, but most of them boil down to, in my opinion, cash and ego.

It's important to note that there are no charges against Delio at this time.  There only has been a probe that thus far is unable to confirm her sources for several articles.  But it will be interesting to see how this all turns out.

And I swear I am not making up any of this.

Now THAT's a lesson in business

OK, I know I knock reality TV and, on the whole, I pretty much detest it.  HOWEVER - The Apprentice is worth watching from time to time, as you can actually learn something about the real world of business....while watching the latest cat fight and inter-show romance.  And sometimes it's not the show itself that teaches the evening's lesson.

Tonight's episode has the cast competing to see who can run a more successful Domino's Pizza operation for a day.  Each team is going crazy, trying to make enough pizzas and get them delivered in a reasonable time.  Which makes me nostsalgic to some degree, because I used to work in the pizza business.  Little Caesar's was my first employer, at the tender age of 15.  Hey, $2.45 an hour went a long way back then.  Well, no it didn't.  Not even in 1990 dollars.

But that's not what I am writing about.

On tonight's episode, one of the teams, Net Worth Corporation, invented a new pizza called the Monge Meatball Pie, or something to that effect.  Good marketing and good eating, especially if you are a New Yorker.  In the middle of all of this, during the commercial break, a new ad opens....

You see the back of a chair, and suddenly it spins around to reveal.... John Schnatter.  Or as he is better know, Papa John.  His schtick?  His most painful, hackneyed Donald Trump impression (let's face it, John may be a good businessman, but he is terrible on TV).  So what does he say to viewers?  "Tell the competition 'you're fired!'"  And what is he selling?  A new, limited-time-only pizza....with meatballs.  The New Spicy Meatball Pizza.

Their pitch?  I love this...

"Why eat a pizza made by an apprentice when you can call the pros at Papa John's?"

Check out the commercial here.

Beautiful, and a lesson in business far beyond what you see during the actual program.  Trump makes money from Domino's by letting them on his show, and then turns around and sells ad time to their biggest competitor, Papa John's.  And not only that, The Donald's people let's PJ's know far enough in advance what the show will be about, what one of the teams will do, and gives them time to put together an entire marketing program and launch a new menu item...during that show.  Papa John's rolls out a new pizza specifically designed to appeal to viewers who suddenly have a craving for a pizza with meatballs from Dominos.  Aside from that, Domono's bought and ran about five spots during the show tonight, too.

Seriously, brilliant.

Oh, I gotta go....there's another fight!

Picture Perfect

Can I start off with another cliche?  "A picture is worth a thousand words" - especially when accompanied with the right headline.  It's most effective in stories of shock and horror, or anytime anyone is talking about a celebrity.  The best examples of this are seen in the checkout aisle at the grocery store.  Us Magazine, People, The Enquirer, etc. all have sensational headlines above a less-than-flattering picture of the hot topic of the day - Hillary, J. Lo., Scott Petersen, you name it.  They usually say something along the lines of "Hill finds Bill cheating again - walks out!" and then show a completely unrelated shot of Hillary with her mouth half open, or a stern look on her face, to visually demonstrate just how angry she really is (even though the picture was taken during a completely unrelated event).  You don't have to actually read the article to form your opinion, or even to get the information you want/need.

A GREAT example of this popped up today in the very tragic case of the MO woman who was killed and then had her almost full-term fetus cut from her womb.  Apparently they have apprehended the woman responsible for this murder/kidnapping.  When I clicked on a link to the story in Yahoo news, the first thing I noticed was the picture they posted of Lisa M. Montgomery, the woman charged with the crime.  One look at that picture might tell a reader a whole lot more than the article itself (where the facts are), and lead them to form a couple of opinions about her before reading the story.

Here's a link to just the undated photo used in the article.
Look at the photo first, and see what you think.  Then read the article.

After seeing that, what more, as a reader do I need to know?!  She is obviously:
1.) Unnattractive, therefore lonely and desperate
2.) Socially awkward, therefore lonely and desperate
3.) Cradling a small dog clad in a pink halter sweater, therefore lonely and desperate and has terrible taste in canine outerwear

When you look at the picture how can she not be guilty?!  She must be a crazed, awkward loner eager to get a baby girl to raise as her own, by any means possible - even murder, right?  (did I mention the fetus was a girl?...) 

That picture can very easily lead someone to make their own verdict about this case, before any facts are discussed, much less presented and processed.  What that picture doesn't tell you is that Lisa Montgomerey is also:
1.) Married
2.) A mother of two high-school aged children

OK, so, this woman is probably as guilty as the sky is blue.  A complete reading of the article will tell you that.  I'm just trying to prove a point about the power and impact of images. They couldn't have found a better picture to close this case before it is even tried.

The Moral Majority is neither...

...moral, nor a majority.  Discuss.  So, there are some high profile interest groups out there that fight to protect what they believe are the morals of the "average American" (whatever that is), but in the end many times they are just using the system to forward their own beliefs and enforce their will on others (like the Taliban, only they drive SUVs and order regularly, without restraint, from the LL Bean catalog).

Good example of this - turns out all the "outrage" over Janet Jackson's nipple shield and the shockjock crackdown of 2004 was actually just a lot of noise orchestrated by a very small group of people - mostly from one organization! - who are quite good at signing protest form letters and emailing complaints en masse to the FCC.

Check it out here.

Basically - ONE group, the Parents Television Council, "accounted for an amazing 99.8 percent of all indecency complaints filed with the Federal Communications Commission in all of 2003 and through early October 2004, according to an FCC audit of complaints."

Amazing.  That means everything the FCC was saying, and the media was covering, about the outcry from American citizens over the moral decay going over our airwaves in 2004 was really just the repeated and magnified complaint of a small group of people with a lot of free time and a strong desire to have the government raise their children for them (which goes into a whole other discussion about how many Republicans these days, being the party of small government, are contradicting themselves here and in several other areas).  Hey, I'll give them one thing - they sure figured out how to use the system.

So, if so few people are really "morally outraged" by all of these alleged indecencies, what does the average American really care about?  My guess - living their lives with some semblance of peace and security - paying their bills, getting to work, putting kids through college, growing old and staying healthy.  They have bigger things to worry about than nipple shields.  Or even Brooke Shields.

As for the Brits, however, we can now reveal what many of them will allow in their homes, thanks to this enlightening article.